In an action sure to ruffle the notebook paper of Island academia, a student dismissed by Touro Law School because of his low grade point average has taken the school to court, alleging that his dismissal was &quot;arbitrary and capricious.&quot;

Touro student sues over dismissal

HUNTINGTON – In an action sure to ruffle the notebook paper of Island academia, a student dismissed by Touro Law School because of his low grade point average has taken the school to court, alleging that his dismissal was "arbitrary and capricious."

Representing himself, Gregory Langadinos of Lexington, Mass. challenged his dismissal in an Article 78 action against the school in both federal and state court.

The state action was dismissed last month but the federal case is pending.

Langadinos, who contended that he suffers from attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities, commenced the federal action before his dismissal from the school, raising claims that Touro violated the American with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Langadinos was dismissed from Touro Law School in August 1999 as a result of his 1.701 grade point average and a failing grade on an evidence examination.

"We provided that student with accommodations that went far beyond anything the law requires," said Touro Law School Dean Howard Glickstein. "His lawsuit is frivolous and without merit."

Because Langadinos alleged that he suffers from ADD, Touro permitted him to take every examination in a private room and allowed him time and a half to take the exams.

After receiving a failing grade for his evidence exam in the fall 1998 semester, Langadinos sought to retake the test. According to the decision written by Judge Donald Kitson of the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Langadinos repeatedly postponed retaking the exam. On Aug. 1, 1999, Langadinos retook the exam and failed.

In the spring 1999 semester, Langadinos received a failing grade for a trusts and estates course. He requested the multiple choice portion of the exam be stricken, alleging he did not have advance notice that the exam would contain multiple choice questions.

That request was denied.

"It sounds that the institution did try to provide alternate remedies for the student, as required by law," said Dennis Payette, vice president of academic affairs for Dowling College.

"I do not (think) the school was unfair or insensitive to the (student’s) needs."

Kitson wrote in his decision that, in addition to his claims against the school, Langadinos "engages in a character assassination" against the school and members of the staff, accusing the school of "selfish corruption of (Langadinos’) federally financed legal education," and a faculty member of "going off the deep end in trying to please students of color and in the process created a hostile learning environment for (Langadinos)."

Kitson warned that monetary sanctions of up to $10,000 would be imposed on Langadinos if he "persist(ed) in engaging in such baseless mudslinging."

Langadinos was unable to be reached for comment.

On March 8, Kitson dismissed the state action because the matter is pending in federal court and the case has "no cognizable cause of action."

"The court relied upon two well-recognized legal principles in rejecting the student’s state law claims," said Kevin Schlosser, a partner at Ruskin, Moscou, Evans & Faltischek in Mineola.

"First, to preserve judicial resources and economy, claims should not be brought in different forums or lawsuits when they can be decided in one – especially if a case is already pending. Second, the courts should not interfere with an educational institution’s academic decisions regarding its students unless certain special circumstances exist."